Last Sunday, 111.3 million people tuned into NBC to watch the Super Bowl. It was the most watched television program in U.S. history. And, in among time outs, touchdowns, and player injuries, Americans were exposed to advertisements that cost brands an average of $3.5 million for 30-seconds of stardom.
Some brands nailed it. Some floundered. And, others should have never even set foot on the advertising field. The year seemed to be marked by a slew of cameo presences, most needlessly adding to an already bloated marketing budget. Some of the classics returned: the E-Trade baby, the CareerBuilder.com monkeys, and Danica Patrick’s boobs. Others, like the Budweiser Clydesdales, took us back in history to when the government did its best to keep people miserable (is Anheuser-Busch InBev seriously afraid of prohibition coming back?).
Yet, even commercials that are considered “Fan Favorites” may not have done what ads are supposed to do: move brands forward. While Super Bowl ads are expected to entertain, the pursuit of this goal sometimes leaves brands on the sidelines. But, no matter how entertaining an ad may be, it’s a bad ad if it doesn’t progress a brand in one way or another.
The following is a breakdown of the three best commercials, and the three worst, according to the four elements of an effective Super Bowl ad: attention-grabbing, entertaining, brand promotion, and brand recall.
The Best of the Super Bowl:
First Place — Kia: "A Dream Car. For Real Life" (David & Goliath)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
Kia missed big last year with a complex, strange, and downright confusing ad featuring its newly redesign Optima blasting through time and space. However, they finally got the absurdity clicking in this year’s spot for the Optima. Joining it on a dream voyage around a racetrack was the striking Adriana Lima, the Motley Crew, a bucking Rhino, and a sub-sawing lumberjack who looked strangely like a burly John C. McGinley. While the commercial was one of the most outlandish of the Super Bowl, it still managed to prominently feature the car (yes, that’s right, Acura…car ads should feature the car). And, the absurd scenario that surrounded the Optima not only helped capture the thrill of driving it, it also served to drive home an excellent tagline: “A dream car. For real life.”
Second Place — Teleflora: "Give and Receive" (in house)
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
In what usually is a showcase of advertising absurdity (Kia Optima), parody (Honda CRV), and slapstick (Acura NSX), Teleflora’s ad featuring Adriana Lima cuts right to the chase. And, in the process, it sent millions of parents’ hands over their children’s eyes. If there is one thing that will grab a man’s attention, it is a scantly clad Lima. And, watching her slowly prepare her lingerie will entertain that attention as long as she wants. This created a perfect setup for the ad’s theme: give, and you shall receive. It’s that simple (wait…really?). While women viewers may not have been enthusiastic about this ad, it wasn’t them whom Teleflora was targeting. It was the guy who decides at the last that he needs a gift. Thanks to this ad, I’m sure Teleflora is going to be at the front of his mind.
Third Place — General Motor's Silverado: "2012" (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners)
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
General Motor’s ad for its Silverado truck was one of the most controversial heading into the Super Bowl, largely due to the bellyaching of its rival, Ford. GM did a stellar job making the most of a post-apocalyptic nightmare as a stage for its manly Silverado pickup. And, ensuring things didn’t get too serious, over-acting and Twinkies (I hope GSP gave a hat-tip to Zombieland) lent it the scenario humorous edge. Hopefully the shot at Ford will be the opening salvo to fantastic advertising war between the two automakers.
Honorable Mention — Fiat: “Seduction” (Richards Group, Dallas)
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: C
Fiat took the Teleflora model and applied it to a car. The sexual tension between the nerdy guy and his imaginary Italian seductress was palpable, which led to a fantastic setup to the revealing of the car, which was wearing the same “outfit” as the mirage. While the attention, entertainment, and brand promotion were all there, I’m skeptical about how well consumers will remember the “Fiat” brand, given its recent entry into the U.S. market.
The Worst of the Super Bowl:
First Place — Samsung "Thing Called Love" (72 & Sunny)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: F
Brand Recall: A
If there is one person happy about Samsung’s 2012 presence in the Super Bowl, it’s probably one-hit-wonder “The Darkness.” Or, it could be Netflix, which was able to pass the crown for one of the worst product launches on to Samsung. While the commercial started with a strong concept (making fun of the Apple cult), it slowly drifted into a weird street party. And, when Samsung tried to pass off its “stylus” as the future of technology, it came time to call it a night. At least consumers will remember Samsung. Too bad it will be for all the wrong reasons.
Second Place — Century 21: "Smarter. Bolder. Faster." (Red Tettemer & Partners)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: C
Brand Recall: F
The selection of a real estate agent is a serious decision, and the Super Bowl is not an environment to try to sell a brand like Century 21. Unfortunately, they took a shot at it anyways. Their effort came off as an attempt to squeeze in as many celebrities as possible in a 30 second spot, and try to somehow make it all relevant to the qualities that make up a good agent. The cameos of Donald Trump and Deon Sanders may have been mildly entertaining to some, but the commercial (and the brand) was entirely forgettable.
Third Place — PepsiCo “King's Court” (TBWA /Chiat/Day)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: D
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: D
Pepsi ended up plunking down some serious money to secure Elton John in one of the first spots in the Super Bowl. However, a better investment would have been using those millions to actually buy Pepsis for all, film it, and put it on YouTube. What TBWA/Chiat/Day produced for PepsiCo was downright stupid: from the premise of using the lovable Sir Elton John for a cold-hearted king, to the cheesy “No, Pepsi for all” line, to the gratuitous use of wash-up Flava Flave at the conclusion. For an agency like TBWA/Chiat/Day, it’s almost as much of an embarrassment for them as it was a missed opportunity for Pepsi.
Dishonorable Mention — Chrysler: "Halftime in America" (Wieden + Kennedy)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: C
Nothing sells like America. Sarah Palin found that magic out early on and built an empire for herself. In a time of economic hardships, an emotional appeal that tugs on the heartstrings of Americans is a strong, strong technique. But, Chrysler is trying to sell cars— not American flags. And, unlike last year where a similar technique prominently featured Chrysler’s 200 model, the Chrysler vehicles in this year’s spot were virtually invisible. Americans may love the nationalist message that Chrysler was selling in the ad, but the fact remains that Americans aren’t looking to buy Detroit. They’re looking to buy a car that’s the best value for their hard-earned dollar. Chrysler’s 2012 Super Bowl ad received a standing ovation because everybody will clap for good old-fashioned American patriotism. But, that doesn’t mean people are going out to dealerships and buying Chryslers to save the country. People can do that with Ford and Chevy, which have done a far better job of marketing their vehicles.
Showing posts with label chrysler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chrysler. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Sunday, February 6, 2011
audi v. chrysler; the two memorable car ads of super bowl 45
There were two car commercials during the 2011 Super Bowl that really stood out among the others. They were Audi’s "Release the Hounds" ad by Venables Bell & Partners, and Chrysler’s "Born of Fire" ad (presumably done by Duffey Petrosky Wieden+Kennedy).
The two commercials were unique for how differently they tried to sell their client. One used humor with a clever positioning strategy. The other used a serious tone and tried to use American tradition and nationalism. One worked. The other did not.
I wrote recently about Venables Bell’s new strategy to position Audi as the "youthful" luxury car among high-end German automakers. Without disappointment, they delivered during the Super Bowl with a comedic--but potent--shot at Mercedes. The ad’s theme, "progressive luxury," drives home the message that Mercedes is a relic of stuffy luxury vehicles, driven by posh old men with no taste (or, as the commercial insinuated, sense).
As long as Audi sticks with this positioning, they will surely close the gap in market share and begin nipping at the heels of BMW and Mercedes.
Chrysler’s two-minute ad--the longest Super Bowl commercial yet for the company--was supposed to be the kick-off for the brand’s rejuvenation attempt.
It failed, miserably.
There were so many mistakes in Chrysler’s commercial it’s hard to recount them here. From using a celebrity to sell a product, to strongly tying itself to a city that has come to symbolize American automaker’s hubris and unimaginative styling; there just wasn’t much that they did right.
Most Americans aren’t stupid. They know that the failure of American automakers is largely their own. For decades, they have made ugly cars with horrible reliability. Unlike their foreign counterparts, American automakers continued to pump-out uninspired cars on the presumption that their "American-made" hokum would sell them.
It didn’t, and one of the worst offenders is Chrysler.
Detroit is not an American symbol of hope and change. It is a symbol of failure and lack of inspiration. Tying your brand to that, no matter how hard you try to pull at the heartstrings of Americans, will not work. This is especially true when touting the product line as a luxury vehicle, when at no point has Chrysler ever been thought of as an American luxury vehicle (the brand that definitively owns that position is Cadillac).
Chrysler additionally wasted extra money hiring rapper Eminem to be featured in the commercial. Eminem’s ties to Detroit are most likely unknown except to a small minority of consumers, so his purpose is the commercial was completely lost on the audience. Additionally, celebrities rarely (if ever) move the needle on sales. And, the use of a youth-oriented rapper is definitely not going to help launch a "luxury" brand targeted to adults.
Reflecting on the commercial, I mostly remember Eminem and images of a decrepit Detroit. I don’t remember the product, much less anything that would encourage me, as a consumer, to think any differently about Chrysler than I did before.
For having two-minutes of airtime, I can’t think of a way Chrysler could have wasted it more efficiently other than just to run two solid minutes of dead air.
For a company that has yet to repay its debt to taxpayers for the bailouts it received to keep its doors open, this commercial was an insult. As a taxpaying advertising junkie, it was an abomination.
The two commercials were unique for how differently they tried to sell their client. One used humor with a clever positioning strategy. The other used a serious tone and tried to use American tradition and nationalism. One worked. The other did not.
I wrote recently about Venables Bell’s new strategy to position Audi as the "youthful" luxury car among high-end German automakers. Without disappointment, they delivered during the Super Bowl with a comedic--but potent--shot at Mercedes. The ad’s theme, "progressive luxury," drives home the message that Mercedes is a relic of stuffy luxury vehicles, driven by posh old men with no taste (or, as the commercial insinuated, sense).
As long as Audi sticks with this positioning, they will surely close the gap in market share and begin nipping at the heels of BMW and Mercedes.
Chrysler’s two-minute ad--the longest Super Bowl commercial yet for the company--was supposed to be the kick-off for the brand’s rejuvenation attempt.
It failed, miserably.
There were so many mistakes in Chrysler’s commercial it’s hard to recount them here. From using a celebrity to sell a product, to strongly tying itself to a city that has come to symbolize American automaker’s hubris and unimaginative styling; there just wasn’t much that they did right.
Most Americans aren’t stupid. They know that the failure of American automakers is largely their own. For decades, they have made ugly cars with horrible reliability. Unlike their foreign counterparts, American automakers continued to pump-out uninspired cars on the presumption that their "American-made" hokum would sell them.
It didn’t, and one of the worst offenders is Chrysler.
Detroit is not an American symbol of hope and change. It is a symbol of failure and lack of inspiration. Tying your brand to that, no matter how hard you try to pull at the heartstrings of Americans, will not work. This is especially true when touting the product line as a luxury vehicle, when at no point has Chrysler ever been thought of as an American luxury vehicle (the brand that definitively owns that position is Cadillac).
Chrysler additionally wasted extra money hiring rapper Eminem to be featured in the commercial. Eminem’s ties to Detroit are most likely unknown except to a small minority of consumers, so his purpose is the commercial was completely lost on the audience. Additionally, celebrities rarely (if ever) move the needle on sales. And, the use of a youth-oriented rapper is definitely not going to help launch a "luxury" brand targeted to adults.
Reflecting on the commercial, I mostly remember Eminem and images of a decrepit Detroit. I don’t remember the product, much less anything that would encourage me, as a consumer, to think any differently about Chrysler than I did before.
For having two-minutes of airtime, I can’t think of a way Chrysler could have wasted it more efficiently other than just to run two solid minutes of dead air.
For a company that has yet to repay its debt to taxpayers for the bailouts it received to keep its doors open, this commercial was an insult. As a taxpaying advertising junkie, it was an abomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)